As some of my Israeli readers have castigated my allegedly too hasty embrace of the idea of Israeli president Katsav’s guilt, I thought it worthwhile to present a Ynetnews article that reveals for the first time some of the testimony by Katsav’s female victims. One Tikun Olam reader called the claims of rape little more than rumor and wrote adamantly that he didn’t rape anyone.
This seems a bit more than rumor to me:
One of the complainants said in her petition that a close friend of the president by the name of Uri Yoeli approached her in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and asked here to trade places with another employee at the president’s office who received many benefits such as trips abroad and promotions in return for having out relations with the president.
“At the end of the conversation the petitioner asked Mr. Yoeli: ‘What do you want from me?’ Yoeli answered: ‘I want you to be the president’s lover. Once in a while let him kiss you, touch you, and things will progress on their own from there,'” the complainant’s petition read.
The president’s friends serve as his procurer??
This sounds an awful lot like rape to me:
According to the petitioner, “there were times when the president placed his hand on his penis while he was dressed and told the petitioner that she gave him an erection.”
“At one time when the petitioner entered the president’s office to return a book to the library, the president pushed himself against the petitioner from behind, tightly grasped her body from behind and held her hands and demanded she have sex with him. The president was simply in a craze. The petitioner began to cry and asked him stop.
“When the president released his grip for a moment the petitioner sat down on a nearby chair, terrified, and the president suddenly picked her up from the chair, opened his pants and penetrated her body without her consent. The petitioner felt paralyzed all over her body and feared for her life due to the abovementioned threat. At the end of the sexual contact, the president got dressed; the petitioner wiped the tears from her eyes, took her purse and left the president’s residence.”
What I regret is that no Israeli court will have an opportunity to weigh this evidence and hear Katsav’s own defense against the charges. Instead we have a backroom deal that attempts, unsuccessfully I might add, to protect the stature of the president’s office by letting off the holder of the office with a slap on the wrist. All this will do is diminish the stature of future holders of the office who will expect that any future behavior of theirs that is unseemly will be treated similarly lightly.
Let’s hope that the high court takes a dim view of the plea deal and throws it out.
Katsav’s behavior is more and more like Clinton’s the more I read about it. If you haven’t heard of Juanita Broadrick until now, then you probably never heard of Connie Hamzy. Connie Hamzy gave an interview in 1992 to Penthouse where she detailed all the rock stars she had sex with. She also said that Governor Clinton’s aids approached her in the bar of a hotel and said that the Governor wanted to meet her. They smooched in the laundry room but didn’t actually have sex because they couldn’t find a room. Clinton and his aids, of course, denied the story. Connie passed a lie detectors test and said, I may be a slut but I’m not a liar. I couldn’t find the actual 1992 interview online but here some sources:
http://www.comedyontap.com/presgirls/hamzy.html
http://209.85.129.104/search?
http://www.rodgercambria.com/articles/connie.doc (the part about Clinton is towards the end)
Richard, I appreciate your perspective on these female matters; but I could imagine thatmaybe the ladies prefer to not go through all the questioning on trial.
Why?
Let me relate a personal experience? I once went to the police to report an event that was the only time ever I experienced a tremendous threat to my life. I had missed a train in Heidelberg and since it was late at night the next would only arrive early next morning. I somehow felt, I should move tthus decided to hitchhike back to Freiburg, which is not that far.
When I got into the transporter, I did not realize there were two men in the car. One was in the back behind a curtain. … That was the guy that thought, I could satisfy his appetite. When I did not consent the scene changed into something really surrealistic. Slowly he pasted Polaroid photos with tape on the transporters frame. They all had one subject. Girls with fastened seat belts on a car seat like the ones in front.. What I do not understand till now is, how they were taken.
Then he circled a knife, slowly. I realized there was no way to signal my situation to other bigger trucks that passed, thus giving me a chance to eye contact with the drivers. Then I remembered a passage from Dostoevsky and a trick to get out of the car. I reread my favorite “The Idiot” again but maybe due to a bad translation couldn’t find the passage as I remembered it. It was something about a lie being forceful, if it contains elements of the real world, that the other side perceives as true. When he let me out of the car he threw a five German piece behind me. Later I realized he considered his defense strategy in this moment? Maybe he went through it before.
At the police office I was questioned exactly along the lines. I was about 24 then and a student. Did I hitchhike to make money, sell myself to people that picked me up? Finally I got very, very tired. I thought in a trial, things would be get worse since the questions from the very start felt completely in line with his “planned defense strategy”. After answering questions for about two hours that were basically all the same, I told them: Thank you, I am not sure if I want to go through a trial, I am fine, I got out, all I have to live with that other girls might not.
They completely changed at that point. They told me that the things I had described did indeed fit into a serial scenario. Usually one found very specific paraphernilia in thsee cases. I told them, they had the car number and the date and left. I did not expect them to do anything, and later a friend working for the police told me that was a correct assumption.
Not long after a friend who worked as a journalist wrote about a rape trial. it was a brilliant article AND it was very much what I had expected. In many ways it is a second rape.
Is this the same court that refused to outlaw extra-judicial targeted assasinations? I wouldn’t hold your breath Richard.
I don’t exactly find Penthouse Magazine to be a paragon of journalistic credibility. But I take yr pt. that sexual abusers the world over have similar M.O.s and similar mindsets.
But I return to a pt you seem entirely willing to ignore. Clinton, unlike Katsav, made a huge contribution to his nation’s political life. Katsav–not so much, to quote a phrase. I do not forgive Clinton his misadventures and they permanently damaged his political record. But in 100 yrs. Americans will still be talking about Clinton’s presidency. How many Israelis will know who Katsav was in 10 yrs, let alone 100??
I can’t think of any significant contributions Katsav has made in the various positions he held. That doesn’t mean he didn’t make any.My point is this. You dedicate a good portion ofthis blog to criticizing Israeli politicians, judicial system, arny etc. Sometimes you make comparisons with the US (“in the US this would lead to …” ) Even if I agree with some of the things you say, I think you exagerrate a little. As far as the Katsav case goes, I too think that this should have gone to court. The public has a right to know if their president molested women working in his office or if he was unjustly accused by spiteful subordinates with a grudge or worse so as part of a political conspiracy. Most of the country (I assume) and Mazuz believe that Katsav is a serial molester. Now Katsav hired the best lawyers money can buy in Israel,and his accusers are not perfect and maybe their motives are not 100% pure. So Katsav’s lawyers were able to find contradictions in their testimony and Mazuz was afraid Katsav would be aquited. As part of the plea bargain Katsav is by his own admission a felon, resigns from the presidency and is forever disgraced. This is not a slap on the wrist for a politician. Now Clinton was accused of many of the same offences. His people signed Broadrick, his supposed victim, on an affidavit that he didn’t rape her. Katsav had A and the other victims send him thank you letters. (the similarities keep astounding me). But Mazuz found a way of nailing Katsav. His political and professional life is over. Clinton served his entire term (even though he was suspected of committing perjury) is a millionaire and is charging hundred’s of thousand of dollars for speeches and might even return to the white house as the “first lady”. So, where is there more justice?
As far as Clinton’s presidency goes, I didn’t live in the states at the time, and I don’t have a strong opinion of Clinton as President.
If the plea bargain had included jail time and a significant financial penalty I would’ve felt justice was done. As it did neither of those things I maintain justice was not done in proper measure.
I don’t think he “nailed” Katsav at all. Perhaps you exagerrate as well? As for Katsav’s life being over–hardly. If Ramon can become a minister once again then Katsav can certainly write a book & make a lot of money fr. telling his side. He’s still well-connected & can turn those connections into business or consulting relationships. You & I both know he received virtually a slap on the wrist.
Cliniton’s accusers had plenty of opportunties to try to “nail” him using the justice system & it didn’t happen. Clinton was impeached though not removed fr. office because the Senate refused to do so. You seem to forget about that. Also, his presidency & career will forever be marked by his sins.
Clinton, in my opinion, even with his flaws is one of the top 15 or so U.S. presidents of all time. Many presidential historians would also agree.
Even if Katsav did write a book, who would buy it? You’re forgetting the Israeli/Hebrew market is MUCH smaller than the American market, and outside of Israel, if anyone has heard of him, he will be quickly forgotten. I don’t see scores of American Jews buying his book. Even in Israel no one would buy his book. He might be able to make some money consulting, but I doubt any serious firm would want to tarnish their company’s reputation with his name. In any case his value as a consultant has certainly been diminished. Furthermore, his victims can still sue himin civil court.So no,I do nots ee this as a slap on the wrist. As far as Ramon is concerned, his crime was much less serious than the one Katsav was accused of. Maybe on paper they have the same conviction, but it is not the same. Anyway, Olmert is going to pay a political price for appointing Ramon.If Olmert has the chutzpa to run for reelection, the Ramon issue will come-up (unless Olmert does something incredible before the next election to restore his popularity).
I have been waiting so long for Olmert to pay a political price for all of his terrible mistakes & venality. So far, he hasn’t been made to pay. I hope you are right though.
That’s a very graphic story, LeaNder. Thank you for sharing it.
It reminds me of an incident long ago when I too was the recipient of some unwelcome sexual attention. I must have been about 14 at the time and totally unaware of certain ‘tendencies’ among males much older than myself. Not wishing to burden you with the details, I will just say that a sexual advance was made upon my person by a local shopkeeper. Molested might be too strong a word for it; indeed it was only after some days had passed that I realised anything of a sexual nature had transpired. I suppose we were all that innocent once until events made us otherwise.
My own dilemma then became much the same as yours. Although the incident itself was not as traumatic, the situation in which I found myself was most disturbing. Should I tell my parents? What would be their reaction? Should I go to the police? Ask someone for advice on the matter? What to do? I was only 14 years old after all.
My first impulse was to try to forget about what had happened, erase it completely from my memory and hope nothing more would come of it. But it wasn’t that easy. I found myself rationalising the position I was in. If I did nothing then what might befall the next youngster unfortunate enough to fall victim to this man’s proclivities? How long could I live with that on my conscience?
I decided I couldn’t. I told my parents about it. My father took me to the police station and there they listened to my story. The police were very sympathetic and informed us that the man had a history of such offences and that they would now be dealing with the matter. Exactly what they did I never found out but, before long, the man vanished from the neighbourhood altogether.
I think we both did the correct thing by informing the authorities. On the very few occasions when I do recall the incident, I’m always glad I made that decision. I know the alternative, that of avoiding the issue entirely, would have haunted me right up to the present day.
Maybe that’s why I persevere with the TOY blog. On Judgement Day, I’d hate to find out I’d passed up on the one possibility that would end all warfare as we know it.
Although I suspect I will have other things to worry about then, hopefully, that won’t be one of them.
Best regards,
John